House Democrat files article of impeachment against Trump

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," July 13, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling along with Eboni K. Williams and Kat Timpf. And we are The Fox News Specialists. President Trump comes out swinging in Paris, defending his son Donald Trump, Jr. over his meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Listen.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think from a practical standpoint, most people would have taken that meeting. It's called opposition research or even research into your opponent. I've had many people -- I've only been in politics for two years, but I've had many people call up. Oh, gee, we have information on this factor, or this person, or frankly, Hillary. That's very standard in politics. Politics is not the nicest business in the world, but it's very standard.


BOLLING: The president also signing off over a new report from The Hill newspaper, it details how the Obama-era department of justice let Natalia Veselnitskaya into the country. Listen to this.


TRUMP: The lawyer that went to the meeting, I see that she was in the halls of congress also. Somebody said that her visa or her passport to come into the country was approved by Attorney General Lynch. Now, maybe that's wrong. I just heard that a little while ago, but it's a little surprised to hear that. So she was here because of Lynch.


BOLLING: And further, The Hill reports that Veselnitskaya had been turned down for a U.S. visa in 2015, but she was granted special immigration parole by A.G. Loretta Lynch, so she could help defend a Russian client in a federal court case in New York. So the plot thickens. Now Eboni, with that loose that's a little bit of a new revelation, I think Chuck Grassley, yesterday, hinted, alluded to that, like how did she get in when she was already turned down for a visa, and if she got in via Obama administration, isn't this on Obama, not Trump?

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Well, first of all, justice by any means necessary, Eric. Everybody got their lawyer in, somehow, someway, right? But, no, I do think that before we start connecting the dots and making big narratives, all of the steps should be traced back to their root. I think that's fair. And if, indeed, it comes back to an Obama administration interest, then we have to look at that for what it is. BOLLING: Kat, smell a little fishy?

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: I don't know. We're going to wait and see what somebody messed up there or not. But I don't think it removes blamed for Donald Trump, Jr. made his own decisions. He's actually the same age as Macron. He's not a kid, which is funny. President Trump called him a kid. It's kind of funny. You can admit that's funny?


TIMPF: Well, funny.

BOLLING: You know what? Here's the whole thing, like, so Veselnitskaya decides to come here and pitch and pedal and lobby for her issue which is adoption, the Russian-U.S. adoption issue. She gets over here and then dupes, and might looks like she gets in through the Obama administration.




BOLLING: Told everyone she had a client. She ends up duping Donald Trump, Jr. into a meeting, pitching, lobbing her idea, and then further goes to congress and starts -- we have reports that she was all over congress over the next ten days pitching her adoption idea. So I'm just trying to figure out how Trump is on the hook.

WILLIAMS: I think she's saying that.

BOLLING: A whole lot of Russia-Obama administration going back and forth.

WILLIAMS: Sure, but except for a part. First of all, Donald Trump, Jr. would have had to know that, right? To have fuller context, and maybe he didn't have the facts, then there's strict analysis, Eric, around Donald Trump, Jr.'s decision to meet with her.

BOLLING: OK, no question. We'll get into it. Let's meet today's specialists. She's a political analyst, a nationally syndicated radio host, and a Fox News contributor, but she specializes in playing classical piano, Leslie Marshall is here. And he's a Republican strategist. In 2008, he served in the state finance leader in California for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid, he's the chairman for the pro-Donald Trump Great America PAC, and he specializes in indoor cycling, Eric Beach is here.

I'll start with you, Leslie. Your thoughts on this -- so you can ask the question, did Donald Trump, Jr. vet this meeting well enough or not? But the reason why this Russian lawyer was even in town was because of Loretta Lynch under Obama, let her in.

LESLIE MARSHALL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Loretta Lynch, to Eboni's point, let her in because there was a client that she was the attorney for that needed representation. They allowed her to stay longer because they were waiting for the motion to come back from the judge, instead for her going back to Russia, then letting her in again. Then when she was here, she definitely met with different people regarding opening up adoption with Russia again. As a parent, as you guys know I've two kids, one is adopted, I'm totally in favor of anything that we can do to help people throughout the world adopt children that need homes.

But she was not up front, not only with the department of justice, she went beyond when she was here. She also, allegedly, was not up front with Donald Trump, Jr. To Kat's point, though, when he saw who she was, where she came from, and what she wanted to meet about, that should have been the stop sign right there because she is from Russia. It does matter. Get dirt on your opponent, no question, but who you get it from, and who you meet with certainly, certainly matters.

BOLLING: What do you say, Beach?

ERIC BEACH, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think Loretta Lynch and the Obama justice department to get the keeps on giving, my opinion. They let her in. There seemed to be no problem with her. And, you know, at the end of the day, President Trump is right. I mean, as a political practitioner, you want to have as much opposition research as you possibly can. I ran one of the largest super PACs along with Ed Rollins in the country for President Trump, and we had people coming to us all the time talking to us about how to win the election. At the end of the day, Donald Trump was trying to win an election. And furthermore, I'm not convinced that there is anything that shapes this narrative of collusion. I mean, we've been hearing this. If this is all they have to point to an evidence of collusion, then, good luck.

WILLIAMS: Can I ask you this follow up question about that. When you're raising money and, obviously, that's a -- what type of questions or inquiry do you conduct when you're -- kind of vetting, if we're talking about the source of the information or the money?

BEACH: Well, I mean, first and foremost, I don't look at political giving as something as a status quo or something as a give back. I look at it as a form of patriotism because people have an opportunity to support a candidate that whether he or she runs on something. What Donald Trump did was he ran against the status quo and we see that with all of the issues. He didn't win because of celebrity. He won because he ran against a broken and failed system. We're seeing that a little bit in health care debate. I believe that's why most of the people give to a political campaign because they see.

WILLIAMS: But you don't really ask -- do you ask certain questions.


BEACH: Of course.


BEACH: I mean, the good news is, it's all regulated, right? And so, at the end of the day, this wasn't about political giving. This was about, was there something of evidence that Hillary Clinton gave during the campaign or during her tenure as secretary of state that might've been out- of-bounds.

BOLLING: Allow me, Leslie, to ask you this. We'll bring it around the table this way. But, you know, this is like the ninth or tenth bombshell revelation that the left, and the media, and also, Democrats on the hill are saying that they discovered. Russians hacking the election, Russians change the votes, Comey got fired, Comey's memos, Trump demanded Comey loyalty, Trump revealed classified info to the Russian foreign minister in the oval office. It goes on and on and on. And these things goes up like a ball of rock but they fizzles out once they get there.

MARSHALL: I wouldn't say everything sizzles out. I mean, there was a memo. I mean, Comey was fired. He was uncomfortable with some of the things the president was saying, how he was saying, what he was asking him to do. But, however, I will agree with you, every time, you know, if we say Russian salad dressing, you know, the Democrats, you know, don't need to get crazy. But we do have an investigation and we need to let that play out. And then, perhaps, we will see collusion, obstruction of justice, you know, articles of impeachment recommended, and I think that -- no, no, I think that's what we need to do, Eric.

WILLIAMS: The B block.

(LAUGHTER) BOLLING: We had articles of impeachment recommended today. But we also had loser -- Senator Tim Kaine earlier, yesterday, kind of doubling down a little bit today, suggesting treason. Now treason is a capital offense. You can be -- it's punishable by death.

WILLIAMS: It also requires war, right? It requires that we are actively at war with Russia, which we're not. So I don't know why Tim Kaine is really on that talking point. But, as Leslie is saying, right, we do have an investigation, and I know many people, Eric, feel the investigation should go away. But I would submit this to you. I will submit to you that it is best for the Trump administration to let the investigation play out. It's the only way for many people in this country, Eric, who are not satisfied with some of the answers coming out of the White House right now, that that cloud will be removed.

BOLLING: All right. Let me throw this to you, Kat. French president Macron, today, said, and this are his words, while there maybe -- while we may have a lot of discrepancies with Russia, it's in France's best interest to have good relationship with them, sounds very familiar.

TIMPF: I completely agree with that also. I love hearing that we are working on having a better relationship with Russia because it doesn't do the people here any good to not have one. And I like to see President Trump taking that approach. That's certainly something that I see as separate. I really hate the idea that just because there's this investigation that any attempts of diplomacy has to be slammed or looked at with suspicion. That doesn't do any of us any good because, ultimately, he is the president. We want him to do the things that are best for the country.

BOLLING: And Eric, does it do the country any good when every time Donald Trump, or one of his family members, or cabinet members mentions Russia, there's another investigation.

BEACH: No. And also, the Democrats have been undercutting our diplomacy, right? I mean, at the end of the day, what do they want? Do they want us to go to war with Russia over leak emails from John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman-Schutz? And going back to one point, Macron and President Trump have a lot of commonalities. They're both outsiders. And when we talk about, you know, really the culture of confidence, we talk about this war against ISIS, which is the number one thing that Donald Trump ran on, which is protecting American interests. And I hate to say that, but Russia is part of that war against ISIS, it's our biggest threats.

WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with that, but I think a lot of people have questions though, Eric, around Russia's agenda versus the American agenda and how long they can coexist in harmony. At some point, are they going to be in direct conflict?

MARSHALL: And I think you're still talking about going to war with Russia over those emails it's as crazy as Democrats saying treason.

BOLLING: No one is actually suggesting going to war. By the way, let's be honest. Russia has been trying to hack and trying to influence our elections for 70 years, since the cold war. But we've been doing the same to them.

WILLIAMS: Of course.

BOLLING: This is common practice. And so, when someone comes and says.

MARSHALL: It doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves.

BOLLING: Of course we should. In fact, I've never suggested we shouldn't. I'm simply saying that if Donald Trump says I want to meet or I want to talk or want to shake the foreign ministers hand in the oval office, we shouldn't be pulling, you know, four levels of investigations as to what they're talking about.

MARSHALL: To your point earlier, both of you, with the relationship that we have with world leaders, certainly, you want to keep good relationships with most, not all world leaders. Obviously, North Korea would not be on my list. But with regard to Russia, you have to remember we have to be very careful with them. Russian hacking aside, look at their position with the Iranians, look at their position with the Chinese, and look at their position with Syria, with Assad, that's concerning. We're not necessarily batting for the same team and have the same agenda and the same goals even with regards to those.

WILLIAMS: And I think, Leslie, expressing, Eric, where some people feel less uncomfortable around President Trump, not because he's having the meeting, not because he's exercising diplomacy as Kat's talking about, but because I don't think -- if I'm being straight up, I don't think they trust that President Trump has a healthy suspicion of Vladimir Putin and Russian agenda. That's what I'm hearing.

BOLLING: Probably the most important thing that -- for the Russian economy is the price of oil. Everything Trump has done has driven the price of oil and gas down, and that hurts Russia. So, if he was really this in collusion or colluded with president Putin, you don't think he would be doing that. I wouldn't expect him to be doing that. He's literally destroying, dismantling the Russian economy himself.

TIMPF: He's done certain things that -- not what Russia would have wanted him to do, but I'm not going to play armchair FBI investigator. I'm going to wait for the actual FBI investigators to do their job and then we'll see what happens.

BOLLING: And comes back with some evidence, right?

TIMPF: Of course.

BOLLING: We're six months in and we have seven investigations in, and there's not been, again.

TIMPF: That's not how long for the feds, Eric. They are a little slow- moving. How long did it take for Watergate?

BOLLING: Watergate, there was a crime immediately. Immediately, the crime was committed, we knew it.

TIMPF: Impeachment didn't happen the next day.


BOLLING: There's criminality in Watergate. This is completely different. This is a witch hunt.

MARSHALL: No, no, this is not a witch hunt, and this involves a lot more people.

BOLLING: This is throwing legal dartboards, the darts have a dartboard and looking for -- trying to hit a target.

BEACH: Donald Trump said it best when he said do you really think that Vladimir Putin wanted me to win this election? I mean, look at all of these steps that he's taken. You have to look at the man's actions, not the words. I don't agree that he's not suspicious of Putin or even Russia.

WILLIAMS: I didn't get the question.

BEACH: I do think at the end of the day, what he looks at is common ground, and I think he's trying to get that in the war against ISIS.

BOLLING: All right. Let's leave it right there. Coming up, Democrats hitting a pathetic new low, Eboni mentioned it a minute ago. One congressman has now officially filed an article of impeachment against President Trump. Are you kidding me? Don't go away.


WILLIAMS: Sometimes desperation can be so thick you can taste it. Case in point, Democratic congressman, Brad Sherman, has now officially introduced an article of impeachment. Yes, article of impeachment against President Trump. It accuses the president of obstructing justice and interfering with the probe into Russia's 2016 election meddling. The congressman explained why he's doing this on Tucker Carlson's show last night.


REP. BRAD SHERMAN, D-CALIF.: The hope is that it triggers an investigation -- an intervention in the White House. And this is a faint hope, that his staff is finally able to say now its real articles, and for that and for so many other reasons, Mr. President, you've got to stop announcing reversals in foreign policy at 4:00 in the morning in 140 characters, you've got to stop making foreign policy in complete ignorance of the facts.


WILLIAMS: Now, as Tucker pointed out, afterwards, that sounds a lot like he wants to impeach the president so that he'll stop tweeting. Leslie, I'm going to go to you on this because, you know, impeachment is serious. I mean, we're kind of laughing about it in a way, but it's a serious thing. And most of us remember the Clinton impeachment trial and things in this nature. We know what that looks like, the heaviness of it. How does it sit with you that this congressman is admitting that he's doing this not really to actively impeach the sitting president, but really is some type of intervention mechanism. And he even admits that it's a faint attempt no less.

MARSHALL: Well, I live in L.A.

WILLIAMS: It's not my congressman.

MARSHALL: Not my congressman. I'm with Adam Schiff. I mean, even Maxine Waters is not on board, you know, signing up for this. We have only two people, Al Green in Texas, and then, Ben Sherman in California. Part of the problem here is, one, we don't really have, if you just google what the articles of impeachment -- needed for articles of impeachment.

BOLLING: High crimes and misdemeanors.

MARSHALL: Right. But for a -- , one. Two, as we talked about in segment A, you know -- that you've got to let this play out. You have to have the investigation go forth. It doesn't help the party. It doesn't help the people, and certainly doesn't help the process. Adam Schiff.

WILLIAMS: Does it hurt the party?

MARSHALL: I think it does because we have some, certainly, you know, rifts and fragmentation within the party as it is. Look, there are a lot of people out there who want Donald Trump to be impeached. Just because you want something to come about, doesn't mean it will. And that's wrong for the American people in the process. What we all want, I think regardless of our ideology is the truth. And I feel that the special counsel will get to the truth if we let him. And this is a diversion, and I just think it's wrong, and I don't like when people in my party do it. Adam Schiff said it's beyond premature to talk about impeachment at this point. I agree with that.

WILLIAMS: Eric, is this a field day for the GOP?

BEACH: Oh, yes, the house approved.

WILLIAMS: Oh, two Eric today.


BEACH: The house approved 1.6 billion for the wall today. If Congressman Sherman is not careful, we might extend it over to the California border.

MARSHALL: We live in Cali.

BEACH: Yeah, I know. That's the reality is -- I'm a little disappointed to be a California resident and that -- this is our representation. And here's the deal. You can talk about his tweets, you can talk about reversing things on foreign policy, but I don't really think that either the media or the Democrats understand why Donald Trump was elected. He was not elected because of the rhetoric. He was elected because, again, he ran against a system of failure. He also talked about things that he was going to do that -- not only did the Democrats not see, but the Republicans didn't see in the primary, he talked about securing the border, and that wasn't being talked about. It was number 7 on the list. Donald Trump ran a different type of campaign, and I'm sorry that some of these congressmen need to catch up, like we'll take it for the 2018 midterms.

WILLIAMS: The Eric Bolling.

BOLLING: So what we talked about a couple nights ago, it feels like these Democrats are so invested in, we've got to catch Trump of collusion story, that they're so into it that they've spent some so much time, and so much effort, so much breathless accusations on television that every little nugget they continue to blow up. I spent the first part of my life after baseball as an investor. OK. I have an investment company. One of the first things you learn when you're in investment is it's not how you make on a winning trade, it's how much you don't lose. You cut your losses when you're wrong. The Democrats have been wrong and wrong and wrong. We're on our tenth bombshell revelation and none of them are panning out. I'm sure -- you know what? Fine, you're right. Let's wait and see what Mueller has to say. But can we all put this aside when he's done?


MARSHALL: Not if he recommends impeachment.

BOLLING: Oh, come on.

MARSHALL: . and you have a Republican congress that won't do it.

BOLLING: For what?

MARSHALL: We don't know yet.

BOLLING: They've linked every single thing that this guy's life has been about for the last year, wouldn't you think they'd leak the most damning thing in the world, which would be some evidence of collusion?

MARSHALL: Because, Eric, you -- I think it's all about the president. This isn't just about the president. Remember, there are different people involved here. Eboni is an attorney. She'll back me up on this one.

BOLLING: You can't impeach Donald Trump, because Donald Trump.


MARSHALL: . you don't cut a deal and ask for immunity unless you're going to jail.


TIMPF: Obviously, he does not think that he's going to actually be able to impeach the president. I think that what he wanted to do was do something where people would start to, maybe, know who the hell Brad Sherman is because I've never heard of him before and now we're all talking about him. It must be kind of nice. I really don't know. And it is just like a lot of the things Eric brings up with the media, over blowing things as bombshell, bombshell, bombshell. This has the same negative impact of not taking it seriously. They're calling for impeaching him now. That just shows that their motivations aren't really in the correct place.


BEACH: One thing I will disagree with is, OK, wait and see. And we keep saying, let's wait and see. But when do we allow unelected bureaucrats to really dictate. I mean, at the end of the day.

WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.

TIMPF: You mean the FBI?

BEACH: It's not just the FBI -- they're not a separate branch of government.

WILLIAMS: Well, they are appointed.


BEACH: But at the end of the day, you know, you also have to look at what those recommendations are, and if they don't go in terms of.

WILLIAMS: I think that's dangerous, Eric. I think if we start undermining the authenticity of our intelligence agencies.

BEACH: Well, not undermining, but they're not a separate branch of government.

TIMPF: The FBI is supposed to do the FBI's job.

WILLIAMS: Well, senate Republicans unveiled their revamped health care bill. What will Mitch McConnell be able to do about it? Will he be able to marshal enough votes to get it passed? Stay with us.


TIMPF: Does it have the votes? That's the big question rocketing around Capitol Hill right now, after senate Republicans released their new health care bill today. Among the highlights, health insurance will be allowed to sell low-cost policies with limited coverage and Obamacare taxes on the wealthy would be kept in place, senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, pressing the case for its passage.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY.: The American people deserve better than Obamacare. This is our opportunity to really make a difference on health care. This is our chance to bring about changes we been talking about since Obamacare was forced on the American people. So it's time to rise to the occasion. The American people deserve better. And the pain of Obamacare, they deserve better care. And the time to deliver that for them is next week.


TIMPF: However, Republican senators, Rand Paul and Senator Susan Collins, already announcing their opposition to the bill, meaning Republicans cannot lose another vote from their side. Eric, got to tell you, the fact that this is the big bailout bill is the conservative answer to health care, makes me, quite frankly, sad.

BOLLING: You get into arguments with a fellow conservatives who say anything is better than nothing and I disagree vehemently. I think going into 2018 with this bill, which the CBO has already told us that if you're 50 and older and at a low income level, you're going to pay more premium than Obamacare. How in the world are you going to win 2018 house seats when your main voting blocs is going to be worse off than under Obamacare, and you've been complaining about for seven years. I hope they table it. I hope they put it aside. I don't think they will. But, again, I don't think they have the votes. Rand said no. Susan Collins said no. And McCain, all-day, was saying I wouldn't vote for it either.

WILLIAMS: I don't know how Mitch McConnell, actually, gets out here, Kat, and say it in a straight face. I'll agree with him, America deserves better than the higher Obamacare premiums, agree. The GOP has the opportunity to deliver on that promise, but, you know what, they're squandering it at every turn. And I think this is a sad and, really, I need a stronger word than sad, Leslie. I think it's irresponsible what the GOP is doing in this moment.

TIMPF: Completely agree.

MARSHALL: If nothing else, we know definitively that this bill is not right for America, because Eric Bolling and I agree on it. We agree that it's not right for America.

But all jokes aside, look, Lisa Murkowski's phones are running off the hook, and he's not going to have the votes. And one of the reasons is, he's not addressing things that Republican constituents throughout middle America...

BOLLING: You're talking about Mitch McConnell, right?

MARSHALL: ... are talking about. Yes.

BOLLING: You're not talking about Trump. Let's be clear.

MARSHALL: No, I'm not talking about Trump. Not everything's about Trump.

BOLLING: Let's be clear. This is a Senate bill, not a Trump bill.

MARSHALL: No, absolutely. I'm not talking about the president. I'm talking about that Senate, specifically Senator McConnell.

The GOP's problem here is that one of the issues with Obamacare is the rising cost of premiums. We see in the -- report after report and analysis after analysis. It doesn't address that, one.

Two, their constituents are the middle- and lower-income Americans. By 2026, 26 million people will be off of Medicaid. You've got to go further out in the plan. Ten years later, in 2036, and you're talking 35 million people total. A lot of these individuals are their constituents. And then asking older people to pay even more, this is -- this is worse than Obamacare.

And let's remember that the implementation to undo something and to put something in place, especially something in place that's worse, it's not just a political nightmare. You're putting politics over people, and that is going to be a huge issue in the midterm election for Republicans if my fellow Democrats get off the couch and come out and vote.

TIMPF: Eric, this is a big bailout bill; and it's the conservative bill. That makes me very depressed that we've reached a place where, are there conservatives anymore if even the conservatives are saying, "Hey, let's do this"?

BEACH: Well, full disclosure, I used to work with Rand Paul, and I consider him a friend. And I think he's one of the most principled senators that there is. And there's $200 billion in new taxes here. And what Senator McConnell says is that, you know, this is changing and changing. Well, there's one thing that we can all unite on, and that's repealing Obamacare. And that's what Republicans ran on.

I agree with Eric, something that we get done is something better than Obamacare. That's not what we ran on.

BOLLING: There's a really, really cool, interesting way to tackle this. You promised repeal and replace. OK, we'll get to that. Republicans, we'll get to that. Instead, in the meantime, you can keep Obamacare, just not make it mandatory. Offer a GOP alternative. Pick and choose which one you want, buy some time, get through 2018...

BEACH: That's right.

BOLLING: ... continue to have the House and the Senate and the White House. And then put together a bill that really works for everyone.

WILLIAMS: That sounds completely reasonable to me, but what I don't think -- and I'll get your feedback on this, Eric -- it's not OK to repeal it and not offer anything in its place. And I've heard that idea floated a lot recently, and I think that would be a disaster, not just politically, but as he's talking about, in terms of actual American people and their health care.

BEACH: The most politically expedient thing for the administration to have done would be to let Obamacare fail. Donald Trump has done his job. He's brought this to the table. Congress needs to act.

TIMPF: All right. Directly ahead, breaking news on a disturbing murder mystery in Pennsylvania, as authorities uncover human remains on a farm in a search for four missing men. The latest next.


BOLLING: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Some breaking news on a grim murder mystery in Pennsylvania. FOX News correspondent Rick Leventhal joins us from Solebury Township now with the very latest -- Rick.

RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Eric, we know that there was one person of interest in this case, Cosmo DiNardo, a 20-year-old whose parents owned the farm where investigators have been searching for those four missing men all of this week.

There were reporters gathered outside a courthouse here in Bucks County for a grand jury that was convening to consider charges against Cosmo, and we have just learned from one of our colleagues at FOX 29, this also now being reported by other news outlets, that Cosmo DiNardo has, in fact, confessed to all four murders of those four men who have been missing since last week.

Cosmo DiNardo's attorney came out and spoke with some of those reporters and said that his client had confessed. And our colleague, Chris O'Connell, at Fox 29 is reporting that, in exchange for the confession, Cosmo would not face the death penalty in this case.

Just to bring our viewers back up to speed here, this investigation began when these men went missing, one on Wednesday and the rest on Friday. And investigators went to that farm on Sunday, because apparently a telephone, cell phone ping. And they brought cadaver dogs, and those dogs hit on the site there where they began digging and were digging all week.

And last night at midnight, authorities revealed that they had, in fact, found a mass grave on that property, about a mile from where I'm standing. And they had positively identified 19-year-old Dean Finocchiaro as being one of the victims in that mass grave. The only question was whether the other three missing men -- 19-year-old Jimi Tar Patrick, 22-year-old Mark Sturgis, and 21-year-old Tom Meo -- were also in that mass grave, 12 and a half feet below the ground.

Investigators have been continuing to work at that site. Rain started falling here about an hour ago, making their job that much more difficult. But we've been waiting for an update from the district attorney in Bucks County, and we're now hearing from local media.

And also, the D.A.'s office re-tweeting some of those reports that, in fact, the only person of interest in this case, Cosmo DiNardo, has now confessed. And I guess the other question, Eric, would be whether anyone else helped him, not just to murder those four men but also to bury them on his parents' property.

BOLLING: Rick, is there any indication, it looks like the demographic of these four victims -- first of all, he confessed to the four victims that we're talking about? Let me ask you that. And also, any indication of where he met them? They're all 19 to 23, young men. Where did he find these people?

LEVENTHAL: Well, it's a good question. And that's a question we've been asking the D.A. and investigators all week. And they've been a bit elusive, saying they're still trying to piece together how these young men knew each other. We've heard a lot of rumors. We don't want to report on the rumors.

We know that two of the four worked with each other and reportedly, DiNardo was seen with one of those men in his vehicle on Friday night. But the reason why they came together and the reason why he may have killed all of them is something for the investigation to reveal.

BOLLING: All right.

WILLIAMS: Rick, two quick questions for you. First of all, with the suspect here, do we know about any prior criminal history? That's my first one to you, Rick.

LEVENTHAL: Well, he was arrested on a weapons charge in February, because he had mental issues and had been involuntarily committed and was not allowed to possess a weapon. A judge had dismissed the charge, but they -- they recharged him earlier this week when they considered him a suspect in this case. And they put him in jail, and his dad bailed him out with $100,000 cashier's check, 10 percent of the $1 million bail.

But then they rearrested him on a stolen vehicle charge yesterday, because they said he stole one of the vehicles belonging to one of the missing men, and then tried to sell it two days later, after the man went missing. So that's why he was locked up again on a $5 million cash bail. They didn't want him to get out, presumably because they knew he had something to do with these four murders.

WILLIAMS: And additionally, Rick, let me ask you this. I know you said that he confessed. His lawyer has said that publicly, but that's different from him actually pleading guilty. Because as you said just now, maybe some mental health concerns. So we possibly could be looking at not guilty by reason of insanity or something like that. That's still on the table.

LEVENTHAL: Well, that would be a consideration, I guess. I'm not a lawyer. But I would say this: that if he's confessing in in exchange for no death penalty in this case, then presumably, they're drawing something up; and there won't be any need for a trial. And this thing could be adjudicated before that.

BOLLING: All right, Kat.

TIMPF: Rick, is there -- is there any word at all on a motive, or we're not that far yet?

LEVENTHAL: Well, it's a good question. It's what a lot of people are wondering: why he would do this. And again, we've heard rumors, but there's been nothing official about -- he wasn't even named a suspect before today, just a person of interest. So really, there's nothing firm from the D.A.'s office that we can report as to why he might be motivated to kill these four young men.

BOLLING: Very quickly, Rick. We've got to go, but the car that he was attempting to sell, was that -- the car owned, primarily owned by the one that they have confirmed, the same I.D., the one confirmed I.D.?

LEVENTHAL: No. The car they found belonged to a young man named Tom Meo, who was among the four missing. He was -- he went missing on Friday night, and apparently, DiNardo tried to sell that car a couple days later.

BOLLING: Got to leave it right there. Rick, thank you very much.

Up next, if you thought San Francisco couldn't get more any politically correct or incorrect, you are sadly mistaken. The insane reason why transit officials are now censoring crime surveillance videos, next.


TIMPF: In our "What is Even Happening?" segment, apparently, crime surveillance video is no longer safe from the grip of political correctness. The public metro system in San Francisco has seen a series of brazen robberies in recent months, where teen mobs swarm and attack innocent passengers to steal their valuables.

Surveillance videos of the robberies exist, which of course, could be used to get tips and help catch the criminals. but we can't show you. Transit officials are refusing to release them to the public. Why? Well, these teen mobs are reportedly made up primarily of minority youth, so transit officials say releasing the video would promote, quote, "racially insensitive commentary" and promote, quote, "a racial bias in the riders."

BOLLING: Help me out here?

TIMPF: I know.

BOLLING: How did race get into this one? It was because they were minorities or underage? Is it -- is it only about the race?

TIMPF: It's about...

BOLLING: Not age?

TIMPF: It about the race. It could promote racially insensitive discussion. But they're still out there. And also, these are repeated attacks. People who are riding the subway, I would think, or the BART system, could really use a look at that to maybe know how to protect themselves from something like that, I would think.

WILLIAMS: I think there's a lot of ways to combat a very systematic and oppressive dynamic that goes on against people of color in this country. That's not one of them. So just that simple.

TIMPF: And it creates additional problems, right?

BEACH: The whole transit system, I mean, they have a $35 million deficit. Their time could be -- I imagine could be better spent.

But it also -- it undercuts law enforcement officials, the ability to do their job, to protect the citizens, the riders that want to ride that public transportation to and from, you know, whatever area in the Northern California area. So, you know, I just -- I wish we had better reinforcement of our law enforcement, because this is something that really undermines their authority.

BOLLING: Is it -- can I ask Eboni, is it racially insensitive to name a suspect, a perp who is fleeing a scene, with a racial description? Is that insensitive?

WILLIAMS: No, because if they're -- if they're in active pursuit of them, that's important for public safety. Right?

BOLLING: There are municipalities who...

WILLIAMS: Now, it's got to be consistent.

BOLLING: ... frowned upon it or actually told the police...


BOLLING: ... not to name the race of a suspect.

WILLIAMS: Well, again, I think now we're talking about a larger conversation where we as a society, I think, have been so irresponsible, right, when we talk about race and culture and color and things like this. This is an overreaction, that what you're describing, Eric. And that's horrible, but indeed, I think the consistency is the problem, where when you see the footage and the coverage; and it looks like person of color after person of color after person of color. That's when those phobias are happening.

MARSHALL: Well, first thing I thought of, like you had said, is it because of their age? Because if somebody said, "Because they're juveniles, we're not putting this out there," that would have been a different thing.

When they said it was because of it being racially insensitive, going further, apparently BART received, once people found out that these were minority youth, there were just huge amounts of phone calls and emails that were extremely racist.

Although I have to say, you know, as a liberal living in very diverse Southern California, having formerly lived in Northern California, the people can handle it. They want BART to be transparent. And remember that minorities are also victims of these crimes.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. That's right.

MARSHALL: We want to catch these individuals. One of the crimes was violent. One was stealing of a cell phone. But nonetheless, if you can protect -- and by the way, the liberal San Franciscans out there have complained that ride BART, as well.

WILLIAMS: And BART has a history with this. They're looking at the Oscar Grant case, things of this nature, where they have been at fault and they have not been responsible. That's why I'm saying I think they're trying to kind of make up for some bad behavior on their part, possibly.

TIMPF: Right. Well, we've got one more here, another absurd story playing out in San Francisco, this time in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yesterday, it heard very real arguments in a very real lawsuit involving Naruto, a monkey who gained fame back in 2011. After Naruto took a photographer's camera and he took us selfie, the picture went viral. The photographer later included the selfie in a book. But the photographer is being sued by an animal rights group for copyright protection on behalf of the monkey, arguing that the photographer violated the monkey's rights.

Eboni, I'm not a lawyer.

BEACH: What is even happening?

TIMPF: I'm not a lawyer.

WILLIAMS: I'm going to say there's a standing issue.

TIMPF: I'm not even...

WILLIAMS: I'm going to say there's a standing issue: on behalf of the monkey? Really? I don't think the monkey cares.


BOLLING: Can I just point something out? Now the 9th Circuit is getting into something they're qualified for.


BOLLING: Finally, they're qualified for it.

WILLIAMS: Saw that coming, saw that coming.

TIMPF: Again, not an expert but I just feel like probably no copyright for the monkey, on account of him being a monkey.

BEACH: Well, even if you -- if you...

TIMPF: There's my...

WILLIAMS: That's brilliant analysis. Legal analysis, no less.

TIMPF: The defense rests. Thanks, guys. He's a monkey. Does anyone disagree? Anyone on Team Monkey?

BEACH: No, but you never know what the 9th Court of Appeals is going to do. I did a press conference there one time when they took "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I mean, 80 percent of their, you know, rulings are overturned at the Supreme Court level.

BOLLING: Talking about the one, the big one, the temporary moratorium on travel, a la Donald Trump. And that's the same 9th Circuit that decided incorrectly that it was unconstitutional.

MARSHALL: The court -- So far, everybody in the court has laughed. And by the way, can we give credence -- we'll get into this, too -- and just props to the monkey. That's a heck of a selfie.

TIMPF: I was going to say.

MARSHALL: For a monkey. He's got it focused, and he's smiling. It's great. You know, it's not -- it's not the owner of the monkey. That would be different. If you say, "Hey, you didn't ask about messing with my monkey. You didn't ask if you can take a picture of my monkey." But we're such a litigious society. This is just, you know, such a waste of courtrooms that are already clogged and...

WILLIAMS: It's so opportunistic, too, right? Like you're saying. Like, you don't own the monkey. You're just trying to get in on this. That's what I'm saying, like, a real -- and there's real -- like, I've seen cases with the Humane Society or different organizations will come in to protect, you know...

MARSHALL: How was the monkey harmed, when he took a picture of himself?

WILLIAMS: But the monkey got the shine off of this. This is a win for the monkey.

TIMPF: So yes, the monkey, do you think it's fair to pay monkeys in exposure is what you're saying? We don't actually need to pay this monkey. But this -- this keeps going on and on. I guess it matters to somebody, right/

BOLLING: You know what else keeps going on and on? This segment. But so good, this is what they should be occupying their time with, is the monkey.

WILLIAMS: Instead of the...

BOLLING: Instead of the travel ban, yes. I'm in favor of that.

TIMPF: All right, cool. All right. When we return, we will "Circle Back" with Leslie Marshall and Eric Beach. We're going to talk a lot more about the monkey.


WILLIAMS: It's that time again to "Circle Back" with our specialists, Leslie Marshall and Eric Beach.

OK, Leslie, now I, too, spent some time tickling the -- wait for it -- ebony and ivory. Right?

MARSHALL: Yes, yes.

WILLIAMS: OK. Not probably as prolific as you. Who are your favorite composers?

MARSHALL: I'm just old-school. I like Rachmaninoff and, you know, Beethoven, and Mozart, and you know, that kind of stuff. Chopin, you know, the masters that I started learning very young.

WILLIAMS: Awesome. Do you still play?



MARSHALL: Actually, a very quick story. I had a scholarship to a very prestigious school, not say, school to be a classical pianist. And I didn't go. And that was a disappointment to some in my musical side of my family. And I didn't play for very long time. It was, you know, I needed therapy to get over that. Yes, so I don't play as much.

WILLIAMS: But eventually, you returned to playing.

MARSHALL: A little bit.


TIMPF: Eric, he said you love indoor cycling.


TIMPF: It's something I always try to make myself go to but seem to have trouble. Do you have any tips?

BEACH: The only thing is marry a spin instructor. That's what I did.


BEACH: She will certainly make you go.


BEACH: If you're married to a spin instructor.

TIMPF: Director order, direct order, I get it.

BEACH: A directive. There's no travel ban on me coming to...

BOLLING: Just keep trying to catch her. Right?

BEACH: That's right, yes. It's very hard to do, though.

BOLLING: I'm going to use my time to ask Eboni about your upcoming book. Tell us about it. Where can we get it? What's it about?

WILLIAMS: OK, so my upcoming book, "Pretty Powerful: Appearance, Substance and Success" right there. It's up on the full screen. Available at and It's out September 12.

And it's been a real labor of love. I really put my heart and soul into this book, Eric, because kind of actually, I think, what Leslie's talking about. As a young girl, I grew up in kind of the pageant world, but I always wanted to be a lawyer and took social justice and politics very seriously. And I had a hard time reconciling that, being both concerned with my appearance as a woman but also my substance and the seriousness and heaviness of the -- the issues that I cared about.

And so this book -- and I interviewed some of our colleagues in it: Judge Jeanine Pirro, Monica Crowley, as well as Meghan McCain; Marcia Clark from the O.J. trial is in it. So I interview other women, as well, and tell my own story about reconciling those two really important parts, I think, of a woman's power ascent, her ascent to being powerful professionally and empowered.

BOLLING: Congratulations.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Eric. Thank you so much.

And thank you to our "Fox News Specialists" today, Leslie Marshall and Eric Beach.

Thank you all at home for watching. Make sure you follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on both Twitter and Facebook. And remember, folks, 5 o'clock will never be the same. Stay with us. "Special Report" up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.